Mass struggle is the only way out
Israel's government's rule has been a chain of scandals and failures, most recently the impact of the world capitalist crisis.
Now they are trying to save themselves from defeat in February's elections by means of a wholesale slaughter of Palestinians in this long planned attack.
Abu Abas, Mubarak and the Arab League leaders condemn the massacre. But they were complicit in Israel's starving of the Gaza's 1.5 million inhabitants by Israel's 16-month siege. These regimes willingly carry out the dictates of imperialism. Mubarak's authoritarian regime in Egypt collaborated in the imprisonment of the Palestinians by preventing free movement of goods and people on Egypt's border with Gaza. Mubarak even met Israel's foreign minister Livni on the day before Israel's attack.
Bush, and Obama, have refused to force Israel to immediately halt the carnage. Bush used similar brutality in the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan. While Miliband makes feeble calls for a cease-fire, the White House does not criticise the massive Israeli onslaught and blames Hamas for provoking these attacks on Gaza. Bush supports the Israeli/Egyptian blockade of Gaza while condemning the consequent Hamas rocket fire into Israeli cities.
Hamas' rocket fire cannot defeat the Israeli state's oppression of Palestinians. The Israeli ruling class do not care about the working class inhabitants of the towns bordering Gaza, but uses their plight to justify the war. The Hamas leadership use the rockets as a means to hide their lack of any strategy to liberate the Palestinian masses from the Israeli siege. The Israeli government does not defend the real interests of ordinary Israelis, rather it exploits their fears.
Every gain made in the history of Palestinian struggle has been the result of active mobilisation of the masses. Tragically for Palestinians neither Hamas, nor Fatah, nor the Arab regimes, have a strategy to defend the masses and stop the Israeli state's slaughter.
For an immediate end to Israeli attacks. For and immediate end to the siege.
For escalation of demonstrations and protests against the war, in the Middle East and internationally.
No trust in the world powers or the United Nations. The Palestinian masses must trust their own struggle and appeal for support from the working masses internationally, especially in the Middle East, including Israel.
Organize the masses in self-defence. Mass action by Palestinians and Egyptians to break the siege that imprisons Gaza.
For united struggles by the workers and poor to overthrow all the capitalist regimes in the Arab states and in Israel. For worker's governments across the Middle East which can end the cycle of violence by resolving the contentious issues in the interests of working people and start to create a society run for the needs of ordinary people.
For a Socialist Palestine and a Socialist Israel as part of a Socialist Federation of the Middle East.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Join Us
The Socialist Party is part of the CWI, and international organization which struggles against the horrors of capitalism and for a socialist alternative. We organize activists in the Middle East and internationally. The struggle against the slaughter in the Middle East and capitalist oppression is ultimately one struggle. Join us!
www.socialistworld.net
0208 8988 8777
Tuesday, 30 December 2008
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Socialism 2008 a Great Success
Capitalism is a system of crisis, a blind system based on the creation of obscene profits for a tiny minority on the backs of the graft of the majority. It is a system that has been increasingly laid bare for all to see over the course of the last few months and a growing number are looking for an alternative. Socialism 2008 offered this alternative and laid out the case for socialism to a new layer of workers and young people thirsty for ideas to change the world.
Over the course of the weekend, around a thousand workers and youth piled into session after session to discuss what the economic downturn will mean for ordinary people, the roots of the crisis and how the ideas of Marxism can help us understand it. Almost 200 people packed out a discussion on the world economic crisis introduced by Lynn Walsh, editor of Socialism Today.
This is a worldwide crisis impacting on working people in every corner of the planet; therefore, a global fight-back is necessary. Sessions on international issues were packed out and reflected this; socialist activists from Greece, Germany, Italy, Bolivia and China spoke and for many, these first hand accounts of working people organising struggle were a highlight of the weekend. For instance, 150 attended a discussion on China introduced by Socialist Party general secretary Peter Taaffe and Chinese socialist activist Fang Gouli. Hearing, for the first time at an event in the UK, the emerging voice of Chinese Trotskyism was deeply inspiring.
Sessions looking back on struggles from the past and drawing out the important lessons of them were also well attended, with discussions taking place on the 1968 general strike in France, the Prague Spring uprising against Stalinism and the civil rights movement in the USA, among others.
Following the electoral victory of Barack Obama on the back of a mass electoral uprising of working people, 90 attended an important discussion on the significance of the election and the celebratory mood that Obama's win has elicited, with huge street parties taking place across the US and other parts of the world. Crucially, the meeting addressed the question of whether or not Obama will be able to deliver the change that millions of workers and poor expect.
The rally on Saturday evening was attended by 900 and clearly laid out the case for socialism. The weekend came to a close with 700 attending the Campaign for a New Workers' Party-hosted rally.
This was another benchmark year for the Socialist Party's Socialism event; in the face of capitalist crisis, we raised the banner of socialism in front of a new and growing audience.
Over the course of the weekend, around a thousand workers and youth piled into session after session to discuss what the economic downturn will mean for ordinary people, the roots of the crisis and how the ideas of Marxism can help us understand it. Almost 200 people packed out a discussion on the world economic crisis introduced by Lynn Walsh, editor of Socialism Today.
This is a worldwide crisis impacting on working people in every corner of the planet; therefore, a global fight-back is necessary. Sessions on international issues were packed out and reflected this; socialist activists from Greece, Germany, Italy, Bolivia and China spoke and for many, these first hand accounts of working people organising struggle were a highlight of the weekend. For instance, 150 attended a discussion on China introduced by Socialist Party general secretary Peter Taaffe and Chinese socialist activist Fang Gouli. Hearing, for the first time at an event in the UK, the emerging voice of Chinese Trotskyism was deeply inspiring.
Sessions looking back on struggles from the past and drawing out the important lessons of them were also well attended, with discussions taking place on the 1968 general strike in France, the Prague Spring uprising against Stalinism and the civil rights movement in the USA, among others.
Following the electoral victory of Barack Obama on the back of a mass electoral uprising of working people, 90 attended an important discussion on the significance of the election and the celebratory mood that Obama's win has elicited, with huge street parties taking place across the US and other parts of the world. Crucially, the meeting addressed the question of whether or not Obama will be able to deliver the change that millions of workers and poor expect.
The rally on Saturday evening was attended by 900 and clearly laid out the case for socialism. The weekend came to a close with 700 attending the Campaign for a New Workers' Party-hosted rally.
This was another benchmark year for the Socialist Party's Socialism event; in the face of capitalist crisis, we raised the banner of socialism in front of a new and growing audience.
Friday, 7 November 2008
Links & Comments
See bottom of the page for some excellent links to other websites. If you fancy writing an article for Wonderful World then just email it in to wonderfulworld.humanist@googlemail.com or add a comment to one of the posts below.
Green Success Makes Southwark A Living Wage Employer
Green Councillor Jenny Jones has successfully passed a motion to make Southwark Council a Living Wage employer, at a full Council meeting on Wednesday 5th of November.
The motion commits the Council to paying all staff, including sub-contracted staff, the London Living Wage and to use local strategic partnerships and other private sector engagements to promote the living wage more widely. Proposed by Green Councillor and London Assembly Member, Jenny Jones, the motion passed with support from Labour, despite hostility from Lib Dem Councillors.
Southwark is only the second Borough to adopt official policy backing a Living Wage, with Lewisham being the other where there are 6 Green Party Councillors.
The Living Wage is the real minimum rate of pay that enables a worker to provide a decent standard of living for themselves and their family. In London, the Living Wage currently stands at £7.45 per hour. The background to this figure can be found in the document, A Fairer London: The Living Wage in London (GLA 2008). Many service sector workers - including cleaners, security guards and catering staff - experience low pay and difficult, sometimes exploitative working conditions. It is estimated that in London alone 400,000 people fall into this working poverty trap.
Jenny Jones stated, "The Green Party has supported the London Living Wage from the outset and will continue to fight for all organisations to ensure that their staff are not receiving poverty pay."
The motion commits the Council to paying all staff, including sub-contracted staff, the London Living Wage and to use local strategic partnerships and other private sector engagements to promote the living wage more widely. Proposed by Green Councillor and London Assembly Member, Jenny Jones, the motion passed with support from Labour, despite hostility from Lib Dem Councillors.
Southwark is only the second Borough to adopt official policy backing a Living Wage, with Lewisham being the other where there are 6 Green Party Councillors.
The Living Wage is the real minimum rate of pay that enables a worker to provide a decent standard of living for themselves and their family. In London, the Living Wage currently stands at £7.45 per hour. The background to this figure can be found in the document, A Fairer London: The Living Wage in London (GLA 2008). Many service sector workers - including cleaners, security guards and catering staff - experience low pay and difficult, sometimes exploitative working conditions. It is estimated that in London alone 400,000 people fall into this working poverty trap.
Jenny Jones stated, "The Green Party has supported the London Living Wage from the outset and will continue to fight for all organisations to ensure that their staff are not receiving poverty pay."
Political Awakening Propels Obama to Victory - But Will He Deliver?
Ty Moore and Tony Wilsdon, Socialist Alternative
November 6, 2008
On Tuesday, voters delivered a decisive, historic defeat to the Republican agenda of corporate greed, corruption, and war. While the total voter turnout remains unclear, experts are estimating up to 64% of eligible voters cast ballots, the highest in at least 40 years, potentially the highest in a century.
As news agencies announced Barack Obama had secured the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency, millions of Americans gathered in bars, living rooms, and election night rallies, erupted in cathartic celebration. Spontaneous street parties and raucous marches filled city streets late into the night. The reign of George W. Bush, the most hated president in modern history, is over.
On top of that, the election of an African-American as president of the United States, less than 50 years since legal segregation, is being greeted with widespread euphoria. Across the globe millions are in celebratory awe at the image of a black man, with the middle name of "Hussein," replacing the hated Bush regime. There is enormous hope that Obama's election night promise of "a new dawn for America" is indeed in progress.
But will Obama and the Democratic Party deliver? Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a projected trillion dollar budget deficit reaching 6% of U.S. GDP, and a new unraveling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama and the Democrats come to power amid a massive crisis of U.S. and world capitalism.
Their problems are worsened by a sharp contradiction between the massive expectations for change among millions of workers and the actual big-business agenda Obama intends to carry out. In particular, it will be the same fierce economic anger which propelled Obama to victory which will, at a certain stage, push growing layers of the multi-racial U.S. working class into active opposition to his administration. The stage is set for a new, tumultuous period in U.S. history.
Decisive victory
The Democratic victory was overwhelming. Obama won 52% of the vote to McCain's 46%, defeating McCain by 7.4 million votes. Obama's victory with the undemocratic Electoral College was even more decisive - 349 to 163 - with the Democratic candidate taking several states previously considered Republican strongholds. In Congress, the Democrats picked up five Senate seats, with several races still undecided, though they will not likely reach a filibuster-proof 60 strong caucus. While several races remain undecided, in the House the Democrats have secured 20 more seats, which added to the 30 seats they gained from Republicans in the 2006 elections, gives them a decisive 254 to 173 majority.
According to exit polls, Obama won majority support in almost every demographic. Seven out of every ten urban voters supported Obama over McCain. The same proportion held for young voters and first time voters. In small cities, Obama won 59% of the vote, as well as 50% in suburbs. Only among rural voters and those over 60, did McCain win.
Obama's stunning fundraising advantage was another factor, allowing his campaign to dramatically outspend McCain in advertising and get-out-the-vote organizing. This was fueled in part by historic numbers of small donations, but more significantly big business and the financial oligarchs of America gave Obama their backing, filling his campaign coffers with over $640 million. The wealthiest Americans, making over $30 million a year, gave to Obama 3 to 1 over McCain.
Obama has rewritten the book on presidential elections, and not just by the sheer amount he raised or his decision not to take public financing. Obama received 3.1 million financial contributors. His Facebook page has 2.2 million supporters and he has more than 700 campaign offices in every state in America.
Among African-American voters, who turned out in historic numbers, 95% supported Obama. While only 43% of whites voted for Obama, this is a higher percentage than Clinton or Kerry received, and roughly half of white working-class voters backed Obama.
Though racism is by no means extinguished in the U.S. - indeed the McCain campaign's thinly veiled racist attacks revealed that deep pockets of bigotry remain - nonetheless Obama's ability to win support in regions and constituencies previously dominated by Republicans reveals a very real process of change in Americans' attitude toward race.
Racism undermined
Obama's victory itself does nothing to assure genuine change for the majority of African-Americans who continue to languish under poverty, de facto segregation, and police repression. At the same time, the symbolic importance of electing the first black president should not be underestimated. In a country where less than fifty years ago Jim Crow laws assigned African-Americans to second-class citizenship and where dogs and water cannons were put on those who fought against this, Obama's victory will no doubt be a catalyst for further inroads against racism.
This will be seen as a victory not only for African-Americans, but also Latinos, Asians and Americans of other races who have been shut out of power throughout the long racist history of American capitalism. Today workers from Mexico and Latin America are being arrested, their families split up, in racist immigration raids.
For African-Americans, the election of Obama could have a huge galvanizing effect. The New York Times describes a 55 year-old African-American janitor who registered to vote for the first time a month ago. "This is huge. This is bigger than life itself. When I was coming up, I always thought they put in who they wanted to put in. I didn't think my vote mattered. But I don't think that anymore." (11/2/08)
David A. Bositis, senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington stated: "It's not just a question of Obama as the first black nominee; it's also that African-Americans have suffered substantially under the Bush years and African-Americans have been the single most anti-Iraq-war group in the population." (NYT 11/2/08)
Obama's election could be a spark that helps ignite a new movement to fight for better conditions among African-Americans. However, any such movement would rapidly find itself in opposition to the big-business agenda Obama will inevitably pursue. While Obama will likely pursue limited measures to address the impact of the deepening economic crisis on working people, resolving the mass poverty and unemployment in the black community will require a colossal public works program, funded by heavy taxes on big business, something Obama has shown little inclination towards.
Economic anger
The dominant issue which emerged in this election was the economy. The war in Iraq was a crucial backdrop to this at the beginning of the election process and will remain a running sore. After two decades of wage stagnation, leaving families to work more hours and more jobs to get by, working-class people have seen a real fall in their living standards in the last few years. The Bush administration's blatant pro-business rhetoric and its outrageous handouts to corporate friends caused a large target to be painted on the back of any Republican candidate. The economic meltdown in October sealed their fate. In October 2008 an astonishing 85% of Americans said the country is on the wrong track.
Attempts by Republican candidate McCain to redefine the dominant issue of this election totally failed. Similarly, their attempt to paint Obama as a friend of terrorists, a Muslim, culturally 'different' (code for racism) and finally as a socialist, failed to affect most voters. The tried and trusted Rovian method of blatant misrepresentations, which they used to bury Democratic Party candidates in 2000 and 2004, failed to stick with a more politicized and attentive attitude among the voting mass. Interestingly, the attempt to define Obama as a 'wealth re-distributor 'actually helped expose how unequal America has become due in part to the Republican-initiated tax cuts for the rich, while stimulating a national discussion on "socialism."
The ability of Obama to present himself as the agent of change has been decisive amongst an electorate desperately looking for an end to the disastrous consequences of a Republican-dominated agenda in Washington. What Obama has managed to conceal is how similar his policies are to those policies.
In a demonstration of how far this electoral system is from a democratic system, those candidates who could have offered a fundamental alternative to these polices were shut out of the debate. In particular, Ralph Nader was barred systematically form the media and from the debates. Cynthia McKinney, candidate for the Green Party, was also excluded. By offering a $10-an-hour minimum wage, ending the for-profit health care system that plagues the majority of Americans' lives, ending the war, and exposing the corporate funding that defines the policies of the two major candidates, well-known consumer activist Ralph Nader would have transformed the debate by shining a bright light on Obama's refusal to move beyond a promise of change.
Under these conditions, Nader's vote was squeezed to less than 1%. Despite this, the 2008 Nader campaign's ability to achieve ballot status in 45 states and to raise $4 million demonstrated the potential for building a national electoral challenge in years ahead.
Republican meltdown
Astoundingly, it was left to the right-wing Republicans and Sarah Palin to use the term "working class," and attempt to explicitly tap the class anger in U.S. society. Palin looked to appeal to the deep alienation working-class Americans feel toward the political system. However, the majority of voters understood this was just another trick by Republicans to confuse voters. The spectacle of Palin firing up the right-wing base, and effectively running her own political campaign, merely exposed ever further the fissures in the Republican Party, the gulf between old Corporate Republican leaders like McCain and the alternative agenda of the right wing.
The opposition and ridicule Palin inspired among the broader voting public shows how diminished the far right has become. Defections from the GOP have increased as Bush's economic policies were felt by millions of "red-state" workers. The situation was epitomized in a photograph depicting a homemade sign with the Confederate flag and the words: "Rednecks for Obama. Even we've had enough."
One can expect to see a fierce battle for the soul of the Republican Party in the coming months and years, as these two wings wage a battle for domination of the party. Their problems are worsened because candidates representing the traditional big-business wing of the party lost more seats in the House and Senate than the far-right wing. Now the ideology of the party is increasingly dominated by what The Economist describes as "southern-fried moralism."
Obama's agenda
Lacking from most post-election analysis was the crucial role played by big business in the election. With their money, their control of the media, and their political influence, the U.S. financial elite helped elect Barack Obama. Confident that an Obama White House will not defy them or shake things up too much, Corporate America opened their wallets to his campaign. Despite his carefully scripted comments about not receiving donations from corporate lobbyists, Obama's candidacy has received far more corporate dollars than McCain's (opensecrets.org).
Of course this does not discount the significance of donations made by historic numbers of working-class Americans to Obama's campaign. However, it will not be ordinary working-class people who will be sitting in his cabinet, or advising him on policy issues. It will be the same Wall Street and corporate executives and established pro-imperialist foreign advisors who have been in the cabinet of the US presidents for the last 120 years. They will be the ones driving Obama's domestic and foreign policy.
Here lies the contradiction in Obama's victory. Obama has managed to speak to Americans of all incomes, including the very rich and the poor. He has received money from regular workers and from corporate CEO's. He has promised to govern one America. However, we don't live in one America. We live in two Americas. One that has grown fabulously rich, and another that is taking it on the chin, with working people scraping by, working unstable jobs, just a layoff away from losing their homes or apartments. One America for the billionaires and another for the rest of us.
During the election, this contradiction could be papered over. However, once he starts governing, Obama will be forced to decide between the two classes.
On Wednesday Obama announced his transition team, with the conservative chairman of the Democratic Caucus Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel emerged as a major power-broker in Washington after he engineered the Democrats 2006 election victory, which saw the strengthening of the so-called "Blue Dog" conservative Democrats. In several cases, Emanuel used his control of Democratic Party money to engineer the defeat of more liberal Democrats in the primaries, even where these candidates were more competitive than their favored conservative rivals.
Clinton's former chief of staff, Leon Panetta, was reportedly the main architect for Obama's transition plan, which has been crafted over months. Discussing how Obama will address the severe economic problems, Panetta advised, "You better damn well do the tough stuff up front, because if you think you can delay the tough decisions and tiptoe past the graveyard, you're in for a lot of trouble... Make the decisions that involve pain and sacrifice up front." (NYT, 11/5/08)
A long honeymoon?
Given the massive budget deficits, which is running at 6% of GDP federally and forcing emergency measures in state governments, Obama's ability to enact serious reforms to relieve working-class people will be limited. The relatively minor new taxes he is proposing on the wealthy will not change the equation substantially, given the overall fall in tax revenue as the recession bites.
Nonetheless, Obama has reportedly been discussing with congressional leaders about a "possible $100 billion for public works, unemployment benefits, winter heating assistance, food stamps and aid to cities and states that could be passed during a lame-duck session the week of Nov. 17." (NYT, 11/5/08) Even from the standpoint of big business, such limited proposals may prove necessary to prevent a further economic collapse and a more complete discrediting of capitalism. However, such measures will at best slow but not reverse the catastrophic declines in living standards that are already underway in working-class communities.
Furthermore, as he did with the $700 billion bailout in September, Obama has indicated support for further taxpayer handouts to the financial elite and big business. The big three auto-makers, who faced catastrophic declines in their sales last month, are faced with the near-term prospect of bankruptcy unless the federal government comes to their aid. Such aid, however, will not reverse the waves of layoffs and wage and benefit cuts facing autoworkers.
It remains to be seen how rapidly or fully Obama will move to implement his various other campaign promises, from health-care tax credits to closing Guantánamo Bay. In Iraq, Obama's pledge to draw down troops will be complicated by the failure of the Iraqi government to formally agree to a continued U.S. troop presence, and the renewed tensions between the Sunnis, Kurds, and governing Shia. In Afghanistan, the situation is unraveling fast with many warning that Obama's plan for a troop surge there will only provoke further conflict.
Nevertheless, even limited reforms by an Obama White House will contrast sharply with Bush's reign, and could give Obama a certain honeymoon period. Democrats' call for patience in the face of the economic crisis, which they have blamed completely on Bush, will get an echo for a period.
However, the experience of the 2006 elections must be remembered, when the Democrats swept into power in Congress on promises to end the war and hold Bush accountable. Their failure to do either provoked rapid and sharp outrage among a more politicized minority of workers and youth. Cindy Sheehan, who broke with the Democrats in the summer of 2007, represented a small but important tendency. With expectations so high, Obama will undoubtedly eventually disappoint millions in office, and a radical minority will open to far-reaching conclusions about the need for a political alternative.
Millions of young people, people of color and ordinary workers have had their confidence raised. Many will be inspired to step forward into political activity as a result of this election. Many of them will see the need to mobilize campaigns and protests in an attempt to keep Obama's attention on those who elected him. Others will be forced into struggle to defend themselves against the cutbacks and attacks resulting from this recession. The wave of political awakening which Obama rode to power was not the creation of his campaign, and the radicalization of the U.S. working class won't stop with the end of this campaign - just the opposite, in fact!
Movements that develop will inevitably come into sharp conflict with an Obama administration. Events will expose Obama, and Congressional leaders as representatives of big business. As a result the way will be prepared, for a new political and class awakening in U.S. society. Consciousness of the need to break with the Democratic Party will grow. More than ever, the question of building a political voice for working people will emerge onto the political agenda. The idea of a new anti-corporate, antiwar political party, a party of working people, will gain traction in the minds of millions, as ordinary people struggle to find a path toward genuine change, a way out of the economic and social crisis engulfing U.S. society.
November 6, 2008
On Tuesday, voters delivered a decisive, historic defeat to the Republican agenda of corporate greed, corruption, and war. While the total voter turnout remains unclear, experts are estimating up to 64% of eligible voters cast ballots, the highest in at least 40 years, potentially the highest in a century.
As news agencies announced Barack Obama had secured the 270 Electoral College votes needed to win the presidency, millions of Americans gathered in bars, living rooms, and election night rallies, erupted in cathartic celebration. Spontaneous street parties and raucous marches filled city streets late into the night. The reign of George W. Bush, the most hated president in modern history, is over.
On top of that, the election of an African-American as president of the United States, less than 50 years since legal segregation, is being greeted with widespread euphoria. Across the globe millions are in celebratory awe at the image of a black man, with the middle name of "Hussein," replacing the hated Bush regime. There is enormous hope that Obama's election night promise of "a new dawn for America" is indeed in progress.
But will Obama and the Democratic Party deliver? Facing the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression, a projected trillion dollar budget deficit reaching 6% of U.S. GDP, and a new unraveling of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, Obama and the Democrats come to power amid a massive crisis of U.S. and world capitalism.
Their problems are worsened by a sharp contradiction between the massive expectations for change among millions of workers and the actual big-business agenda Obama intends to carry out. In particular, it will be the same fierce economic anger which propelled Obama to victory which will, at a certain stage, push growing layers of the multi-racial U.S. working class into active opposition to his administration. The stage is set for a new, tumultuous period in U.S. history.
Decisive victory
The Democratic victory was overwhelming. Obama won 52% of the vote to McCain's 46%, defeating McCain by 7.4 million votes. Obama's victory with the undemocratic Electoral College was even more decisive - 349 to 163 - with the Democratic candidate taking several states previously considered Republican strongholds. In Congress, the Democrats picked up five Senate seats, with several races still undecided, though they will not likely reach a filibuster-proof 60 strong caucus. While several races remain undecided, in the House the Democrats have secured 20 more seats, which added to the 30 seats they gained from Republicans in the 2006 elections, gives them a decisive 254 to 173 majority.
According to exit polls, Obama won majority support in almost every demographic. Seven out of every ten urban voters supported Obama over McCain. The same proportion held for young voters and first time voters. In small cities, Obama won 59% of the vote, as well as 50% in suburbs. Only among rural voters and those over 60, did McCain win.
Obama's stunning fundraising advantage was another factor, allowing his campaign to dramatically outspend McCain in advertising and get-out-the-vote organizing. This was fueled in part by historic numbers of small donations, but more significantly big business and the financial oligarchs of America gave Obama their backing, filling his campaign coffers with over $640 million. The wealthiest Americans, making over $30 million a year, gave to Obama 3 to 1 over McCain.
Obama has rewritten the book on presidential elections, and not just by the sheer amount he raised or his decision not to take public financing. Obama received 3.1 million financial contributors. His Facebook page has 2.2 million supporters and he has more than 700 campaign offices in every state in America.
Among African-American voters, who turned out in historic numbers, 95% supported Obama. While only 43% of whites voted for Obama, this is a higher percentage than Clinton or Kerry received, and roughly half of white working-class voters backed Obama.
Though racism is by no means extinguished in the U.S. - indeed the McCain campaign's thinly veiled racist attacks revealed that deep pockets of bigotry remain - nonetheless Obama's ability to win support in regions and constituencies previously dominated by Republicans reveals a very real process of change in Americans' attitude toward race.
Racism undermined
Obama's victory itself does nothing to assure genuine change for the majority of African-Americans who continue to languish under poverty, de facto segregation, and police repression. At the same time, the symbolic importance of electing the first black president should not be underestimated. In a country where less than fifty years ago Jim Crow laws assigned African-Americans to second-class citizenship and where dogs and water cannons were put on those who fought against this, Obama's victory will no doubt be a catalyst for further inroads against racism.
This will be seen as a victory not only for African-Americans, but also Latinos, Asians and Americans of other races who have been shut out of power throughout the long racist history of American capitalism. Today workers from Mexico and Latin America are being arrested, their families split up, in racist immigration raids.
For African-Americans, the election of Obama could have a huge galvanizing effect. The New York Times describes a 55 year-old African-American janitor who registered to vote for the first time a month ago. "This is huge. This is bigger than life itself. When I was coming up, I always thought they put in who they wanted to put in. I didn't think my vote mattered. But I don't think that anymore." (11/2/08)
David A. Bositis, senior political analyst at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies in Washington stated: "It's not just a question of Obama as the first black nominee; it's also that African-Americans have suffered substantially under the Bush years and African-Americans have been the single most anti-Iraq-war group in the population." (NYT 11/2/08)
Obama's election could be a spark that helps ignite a new movement to fight for better conditions among African-Americans. However, any such movement would rapidly find itself in opposition to the big-business agenda Obama will inevitably pursue. While Obama will likely pursue limited measures to address the impact of the deepening economic crisis on working people, resolving the mass poverty and unemployment in the black community will require a colossal public works program, funded by heavy taxes on big business, something Obama has shown little inclination towards.
Economic anger
The dominant issue which emerged in this election was the economy. The war in Iraq was a crucial backdrop to this at the beginning of the election process and will remain a running sore. After two decades of wage stagnation, leaving families to work more hours and more jobs to get by, working-class people have seen a real fall in their living standards in the last few years. The Bush administration's blatant pro-business rhetoric and its outrageous handouts to corporate friends caused a large target to be painted on the back of any Republican candidate. The economic meltdown in October sealed their fate. In October 2008 an astonishing 85% of Americans said the country is on the wrong track.
Attempts by Republican candidate McCain to redefine the dominant issue of this election totally failed. Similarly, their attempt to paint Obama as a friend of terrorists, a Muslim, culturally 'different' (code for racism) and finally as a socialist, failed to affect most voters. The tried and trusted Rovian method of blatant misrepresentations, which they used to bury Democratic Party candidates in 2000 and 2004, failed to stick with a more politicized and attentive attitude among the voting mass. Interestingly, the attempt to define Obama as a 'wealth re-distributor 'actually helped expose how unequal America has become due in part to the Republican-initiated tax cuts for the rich, while stimulating a national discussion on "socialism."
The ability of Obama to present himself as the agent of change has been decisive amongst an electorate desperately looking for an end to the disastrous consequences of a Republican-dominated agenda in Washington. What Obama has managed to conceal is how similar his policies are to those policies.
In a demonstration of how far this electoral system is from a democratic system, those candidates who could have offered a fundamental alternative to these polices were shut out of the debate. In particular, Ralph Nader was barred systematically form the media and from the debates. Cynthia McKinney, candidate for the Green Party, was also excluded. By offering a $10-an-hour minimum wage, ending the for-profit health care system that plagues the majority of Americans' lives, ending the war, and exposing the corporate funding that defines the policies of the two major candidates, well-known consumer activist Ralph Nader would have transformed the debate by shining a bright light on Obama's refusal to move beyond a promise of change.
Under these conditions, Nader's vote was squeezed to less than 1%. Despite this, the 2008 Nader campaign's ability to achieve ballot status in 45 states and to raise $4 million demonstrated the potential for building a national electoral challenge in years ahead.
Republican meltdown
Astoundingly, it was left to the right-wing Republicans and Sarah Palin to use the term "working class," and attempt to explicitly tap the class anger in U.S. society. Palin looked to appeal to the deep alienation working-class Americans feel toward the political system. However, the majority of voters understood this was just another trick by Republicans to confuse voters. The spectacle of Palin firing up the right-wing base, and effectively running her own political campaign, merely exposed ever further the fissures in the Republican Party, the gulf between old Corporate Republican leaders like McCain and the alternative agenda of the right wing.
The opposition and ridicule Palin inspired among the broader voting public shows how diminished the far right has become. Defections from the GOP have increased as Bush's economic policies were felt by millions of "red-state" workers. The situation was epitomized in a photograph depicting a homemade sign with the Confederate flag and the words: "Rednecks for Obama. Even we've had enough."
One can expect to see a fierce battle for the soul of the Republican Party in the coming months and years, as these two wings wage a battle for domination of the party. Their problems are worsened because candidates representing the traditional big-business wing of the party lost more seats in the House and Senate than the far-right wing. Now the ideology of the party is increasingly dominated by what The Economist describes as "southern-fried moralism."
Obama's agenda
Lacking from most post-election analysis was the crucial role played by big business in the election. With their money, their control of the media, and their political influence, the U.S. financial elite helped elect Barack Obama. Confident that an Obama White House will not defy them or shake things up too much, Corporate America opened their wallets to his campaign. Despite his carefully scripted comments about not receiving donations from corporate lobbyists, Obama's candidacy has received far more corporate dollars than McCain's (opensecrets.org).
Of course this does not discount the significance of donations made by historic numbers of working-class Americans to Obama's campaign. However, it will not be ordinary working-class people who will be sitting in his cabinet, or advising him on policy issues. It will be the same Wall Street and corporate executives and established pro-imperialist foreign advisors who have been in the cabinet of the US presidents for the last 120 years. They will be the ones driving Obama's domestic and foreign policy.
Here lies the contradiction in Obama's victory. Obama has managed to speak to Americans of all incomes, including the very rich and the poor. He has received money from regular workers and from corporate CEO's. He has promised to govern one America. However, we don't live in one America. We live in two Americas. One that has grown fabulously rich, and another that is taking it on the chin, with working people scraping by, working unstable jobs, just a layoff away from losing their homes or apartments. One America for the billionaires and another for the rest of us.
During the election, this contradiction could be papered over. However, once he starts governing, Obama will be forced to decide between the two classes.
On Wednesday Obama announced his transition team, with the conservative chairman of the Democratic Caucus Rahm Emanuel as his Chief of Staff. Emanuel emerged as a major power-broker in Washington after he engineered the Democrats 2006 election victory, which saw the strengthening of the so-called "Blue Dog" conservative Democrats. In several cases, Emanuel used his control of Democratic Party money to engineer the defeat of more liberal Democrats in the primaries, even where these candidates were more competitive than their favored conservative rivals.
Clinton's former chief of staff, Leon Panetta, was reportedly the main architect for Obama's transition plan, which has been crafted over months. Discussing how Obama will address the severe economic problems, Panetta advised, "You better damn well do the tough stuff up front, because if you think you can delay the tough decisions and tiptoe past the graveyard, you're in for a lot of trouble... Make the decisions that involve pain and sacrifice up front." (NYT, 11/5/08)
A long honeymoon?
Given the massive budget deficits, which is running at 6% of GDP federally and forcing emergency measures in state governments, Obama's ability to enact serious reforms to relieve working-class people will be limited. The relatively minor new taxes he is proposing on the wealthy will not change the equation substantially, given the overall fall in tax revenue as the recession bites.
Nonetheless, Obama has reportedly been discussing with congressional leaders about a "possible $100 billion for public works, unemployment benefits, winter heating assistance, food stamps and aid to cities and states that could be passed during a lame-duck session the week of Nov. 17." (NYT, 11/5/08) Even from the standpoint of big business, such limited proposals may prove necessary to prevent a further economic collapse and a more complete discrediting of capitalism. However, such measures will at best slow but not reverse the catastrophic declines in living standards that are already underway in working-class communities.
Furthermore, as he did with the $700 billion bailout in September, Obama has indicated support for further taxpayer handouts to the financial elite and big business. The big three auto-makers, who faced catastrophic declines in their sales last month, are faced with the near-term prospect of bankruptcy unless the federal government comes to their aid. Such aid, however, will not reverse the waves of layoffs and wage and benefit cuts facing autoworkers.
It remains to be seen how rapidly or fully Obama will move to implement his various other campaign promises, from health-care tax credits to closing Guantánamo Bay. In Iraq, Obama's pledge to draw down troops will be complicated by the failure of the Iraqi government to formally agree to a continued U.S. troop presence, and the renewed tensions between the Sunnis, Kurds, and governing Shia. In Afghanistan, the situation is unraveling fast with many warning that Obama's plan for a troop surge there will only provoke further conflict.
Nevertheless, even limited reforms by an Obama White House will contrast sharply with Bush's reign, and could give Obama a certain honeymoon period. Democrats' call for patience in the face of the economic crisis, which they have blamed completely on Bush, will get an echo for a period.
However, the experience of the 2006 elections must be remembered, when the Democrats swept into power in Congress on promises to end the war and hold Bush accountable. Their failure to do either provoked rapid and sharp outrage among a more politicized minority of workers and youth. Cindy Sheehan, who broke with the Democrats in the summer of 2007, represented a small but important tendency. With expectations so high, Obama will undoubtedly eventually disappoint millions in office, and a radical minority will open to far-reaching conclusions about the need for a political alternative.
Millions of young people, people of color and ordinary workers have had their confidence raised. Many will be inspired to step forward into political activity as a result of this election. Many of them will see the need to mobilize campaigns and protests in an attempt to keep Obama's attention on those who elected him. Others will be forced into struggle to defend themselves against the cutbacks and attacks resulting from this recession. The wave of political awakening which Obama rode to power was not the creation of his campaign, and the radicalization of the U.S. working class won't stop with the end of this campaign - just the opposite, in fact!
Movements that develop will inevitably come into sharp conflict with an Obama administration. Events will expose Obama, and Congressional leaders as representatives of big business. As a result the way will be prepared, for a new political and class awakening in U.S. society. Consciousness of the need to break with the Democratic Party will grow. More than ever, the question of building a political voice for working people will emerge onto the political agenda. The idea of a new anti-corporate, antiwar political party, a party of working people, will gain traction in the minds of millions, as ordinary people struggle to find a path toward genuine change, a way out of the economic and social crisis engulfing U.S. society.
Wednesday, 5 November 2008
George Bush's toxic legacy
Editorial from the Socialist - 5th November 2008
As George Bush's last term as US president draws to a close he leaves behind a nightmare legacy that includes an economy in recession, a huge public deficit, a wider gap between rich and poor and the quagmire of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His departure will be celebrated by most workers and the poor in the US and worldwide.
The confrontational foreign policies of Bush and the Republican hawks closest to him have even become too much of a liability for many right wing military and government capitalist representatives around the world. From the likes of Tory David Cameron in Britain, to leading army generals in Israel, tacit or open support has been expressed for Barack Obama.
As election day approached, a wave of excitement and expectation swept across a large layer of the US population, fuelled by hatred of the neo-cons around Bush and a demand for change.
Bush came to power at the end of 2000 through a post-election legal coup. The seeds of the current global economic crisis were already starting to sprout in the US economy just months after Bush's 'victory'. However, the ensuing bubbles in share prices, housing and speculation delayed the inevitable recession which is now breaking out.
Last month, US factory activity fell to its lowest point in 26 years. One US economist concluded: "It means we're in recession....a pretty solid manufacturing recession". Employment figures have fallen to their lowest for 20 years which is clearly illustrated in the crisis in the US car industry. Ford, General Motors and Chrysler (known as the Detroit Three) plan to cut 35 plants which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs and are planning to cut production by at least a million vehicles by 2012. This will also inevitably impact on car plants in the UK and other parts of the world.
Bush started in office with a budget surplus of $236 billion but bequeaths a deficit of nearly $500 billion as government funds were spent on tax cuts for the rich, and for costly wars - over £600 billion has been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Recently his administration has been forced to abandon its praise for the neo-liberal, free market economy, and instead bail out banks and financial institutions in order to try to prevent a 1930s type recession. But this is increasing the public debt further, which working class and middle class people will be expected to pay the price for at a future date.
Already five million more Americans have suffered poverty since Bush took power and another seven million people are without health insurance. 45 million US citizens have no health insurance at all and a third have had trouble paying medical bills. The top 1% of Americans receive 21% of all income and the bottom 50% receive just 13%.
The plight of the poor, including many African-Americans, was revealed in September 2005 when hurricane Katrina caused the flooding of New Orleans. The rest of the US as well as the wider world witnessed the extreme class inequality and massive poverty in the world's richest country, as poor people were trapped in rising water levels with a delayed rescue.
Blood on his hands
Bush and his fellow neo-cons pursued aggressive interventions and foreign policy in areas of the world such as the Middle East and Asia. Following 9/11, they declared war on 'terrorism' and 'evil'. By attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq, the US appeared more than ever as the superpower of the world, unstoppable by any force.
But as the death toll and injuries of US soldiers have escalated and the devastation and conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan goes on, more and more Americans oppose the wars. 4,816 Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have died and over 40,000 have been wounded, along with tens of thousands of civilian and other deaths in those countries. The horrors of Guantanamo Bay and other incidences of torture by US special forces have compounded Bush's unpopularity.
Now, while still the largest economic and military power, the limitations of US imperialism's power are being clearly revealed. As well as this being seen in the failed interventions, it is also seen in the fact that despite a military budget of over $500 billion a year, US military forces are overstretched by their present commitments, making further major troop interventions, such as against Iran, impossible. The US is also embroiled in the developing turmoil in Pakistan where there is a growing backlash against its involvement.
The new president - most likely Obama - is inheriting all this. Following the failure of the Bush-led interventions, he will be forced to move away from many of the foreign policy stances taken over recent years. But he will rule in the interests of US imperialism, which means that further military interventions will inevitably occur worldwide.
The new administration is facing an entirely different world situation to that faced by Bush in 2000, and not just regarding military interventions. The global economic crisis will bring new tensions and trade conflicts between the capitalist classes worldwide.
And ruling in the interests of US big business will mean that all the problems suffered by US workers, of job losses, low wages and poor conditions will not be resolved.
This in turn means the new president will also face the beginnings of a re-awakening of struggle by the working class and poor in America - a foretaste of which was shown in the huge numbers of people queuing to vote in the election.
Anti-war protests, demonstrations of immigrants, anger over the aftermath of Katrina, anger at the price of recession and against bank bailouts, have revealed rising opposition to the top politicians, and also a questioning of how the richest country on the planet can have such inequality. The time is coming closer in which US workers will build their own independent political representation.
As George Bush's last term as US president draws to a close he leaves behind a nightmare legacy that includes an economy in recession, a huge public deficit, a wider gap between rich and poor and the quagmire of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. His departure will be celebrated by most workers and the poor in the US and worldwide.
The confrontational foreign policies of Bush and the Republican hawks closest to him have even become too much of a liability for many right wing military and government capitalist representatives around the world. From the likes of Tory David Cameron in Britain, to leading army generals in Israel, tacit or open support has been expressed for Barack Obama.
As election day approached, a wave of excitement and expectation swept across a large layer of the US population, fuelled by hatred of the neo-cons around Bush and a demand for change.
Bush came to power at the end of 2000 through a post-election legal coup. The seeds of the current global economic crisis were already starting to sprout in the US economy just months after Bush's 'victory'. However, the ensuing bubbles in share prices, housing and speculation delayed the inevitable recession which is now breaking out.
Last month, US factory activity fell to its lowest point in 26 years. One US economist concluded: "It means we're in recession....a pretty solid manufacturing recession". Employment figures have fallen to their lowest for 20 years which is clearly illustrated in the crisis in the US car industry. Ford, General Motors and Chrysler (known as the Detroit Three) plan to cut 35 plants which will result in the loss of 10,000 jobs and are planning to cut production by at least a million vehicles by 2012. This will also inevitably impact on car plants in the UK and other parts of the world.
Bush started in office with a budget surplus of $236 billion but bequeaths a deficit of nearly $500 billion as government funds were spent on tax cuts for the rich, and for costly wars - over £600 billion has been spent on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Recently his administration has been forced to abandon its praise for the neo-liberal, free market economy, and instead bail out banks and financial institutions in order to try to prevent a 1930s type recession. But this is increasing the public debt further, which working class and middle class people will be expected to pay the price for at a future date.
Already five million more Americans have suffered poverty since Bush took power and another seven million people are without health insurance. 45 million US citizens have no health insurance at all and a third have had trouble paying medical bills. The top 1% of Americans receive 21% of all income and the bottom 50% receive just 13%.
The plight of the poor, including many African-Americans, was revealed in September 2005 when hurricane Katrina caused the flooding of New Orleans. The rest of the US as well as the wider world witnessed the extreme class inequality and massive poverty in the world's richest country, as poor people were trapped in rising water levels with a delayed rescue.
Blood on his hands
Bush and his fellow neo-cons pursued aggressive interventions and foreign policy in areas of the world such as the Middle East and Asia. Following 9/11, they declared war on 'terrorism' and 'evil'. By attacking Afghanistan and then Iraq, the US appeared more than ever as the superpower of the world, unstoppable by any force.
But as the death toll and injuries of US soldiers have escalated and the devastation and conflict in Iraq and Afghanistan goes on, more and more Americans oppose the wars. 4,816 Americans serving in Iraq and Afghanistan have died and over 40,000 have been wounded, along with tens of thousands of civilian and other deaths in those countries. The horrors of Guantanamo Bay and other incidences of torture by US special forces have compounded Bush's unpopularity.
Now, while still the largest economic and military power, the limitations of US imperialism's power are being clearly revealed. As well as this being seen in the failed interventions, it is also seen in the fact that despite a military budget of over $500 billion a year, US military forces are overstretched by their present commitments, making further major troop interventions, such as against Iran, impossible. The US is also embroiled in the developing turmoil in Pakistan where there is a growing backlash against its involvement.
The new president - most likely Obama - is inheriting all this. Following the failure of the Bush-led interventions, he will be forced to move away from many of the foreign policy stances taken over recent years. But he will rule in the interests of US imperialism, which means that further military interventions will inevitably occur worldwide.
The new administration is facing an entirely different world situation to that faced by Bush in 2000, and not just regarding military interventions. The global economic crisis will bring new tensions and trade conflicts between the capitalist classes worldwide.
And ruling in the interests of US big business will mean that all the problems suffered by US workers, of job losses, low wages and poor conditions will not be resolved.
This in turn means the new president will also face the beginnings of a re-awakening of struggle by the working class and poor in America - a foretaste of which was shown in the huge numbers of people queuing to vote in the election.
Anti-war protests, demonstrations of immigrants, anger over the aftermath of Katrina, anger at the price of recession and against bank bailouts, have revealed rising opposition to the top politicians, and also a questioning of how the richest country on the planet can have such inequality. The time is coming closer in which US workers will build their own independent political representation.
Friday, 31 October 2008
Conservatives accused of stoking the fires of hatred and xenophobia against Migrant Workers
In a Conservative Party leaflet, issued during a recent bye-election in Rushden, Northamptonshire, the claim was made that, of the 52,000 new homes to be build in North Northamptonshire over the next few years, “up to a third is estimated to be for migrant workers from Eastern Europe”. This figure has also been widely canvassed by the Conservative Member of Parliament for Wellingborough, Peter Bone.
By Paul Crofts - Socialist Councillor, Wellingborough
The claim is without any factual or evidential basis and is disputed by both a senior council officer in a north Northamptonshire Council and by the North Northamptonshire Development Company.
In confidential e-mails to me from these two independent sources they clearly state “… some are making false assumptions”, “I have not heard of this before… there are certainly no targets or estimates regarding the occupiers of affordable or indeed market homes…NNDC is not aware of and does not believe there is any substance to (this)”.
A possible explanation for the 30% figure is that there has been deliberate or unwitting confusion with the 30% target for affordable housing, which will go overwhelmingly to local people. However, one of the sources also indicted that this could be either a misunderstanding or “someone has been mischievous”.
Whatever the explanation for this utterly false, bogus and untrue “30% migrant worker” figure, its reproduction by the Conservative Party in an election leaflet, and canvassed widely by a Conservative MP, will no doubt have the effect of further stoking up hostility to migrant workers, in a context in which they are already being vilified, attacked and misrepresented. This is a deliberate “playing” of an anti-migrant worker “card” to gain votes, plays on people’s fears and prejudices and is presented as an argument against new housing developments in the area. This 30% figure is now becoming widely accepted locally, despite it being totally untrue and without any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it.
In such a context I would expect the Conservative Party to act more responsibly and resist the temptation of inflaming hostility and racism against European Union migrant workers, especially as there are millions of UK residents also living and working in the EU who could also come under similar threat and vilification in the future, especially in the context of growing economic insecurity across Europe.
I know there will also be many Conservatives who will also be dismayed by this anti-migrant worker stance – particularly those with family members, friends or work colleagues whose origins are from Europe. Migrant workers from the EU, and other immigrants to the UK, have a long and distinguished history of contributing to our economy and society and there are many who have leading positions in, or who are members of, all political parties – including the Conservative Party.
David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, has made it clear on many occasions that racism is completely unacceptable and we should not tolerate racism in any walk of life or society.
I call upon David Cameron and the Conservative Party to investigate these cases of misleading and inaccurate anti-migrant worker statements and take action to eliminate racism from the Conservative Party.
By Paul Crofts - Socialist Councillor, Wellingborough
The claim is without any factual or evidential basis and is disputed by both a senior council officer in a north Northamptonshire Council and by the North Northamptonshire Development Company.
In confidential e-mails to me from these two independent sources they clearly state “… some are making false assumptions”, “I have not heard of this before… there are certainly no targets or estimates regarding the occupiers of affordable or indeed market homes…NNDC is not aware of and does not believe there is any substance to (this)”.
A possible explanation for the 30% figure is that there has been deliberate or unwitting confusion with the 30% target for affordable housing, which will go overwhelmingly to local people. However, one of the sources also indicted that this could be either a misunderstanding or “someone has been mischievous”.
Whatever the explanation for this utterly false, bogus and untrue “30% migrant worker” figure, its reproduction by the Conservative Party in an election leaflet, and canvassed widely by a Conservative MP, will no doubt have the effect of further stoking up hostility to migrant workers, in a context in which they are already being vilified, attacked and misrepresented. This is a deliberate “playing” of an anti-migrant worker “card” to gain votes, plays on people’s fears and prejudices and is presented as an argument against new housing developments in the area. This 30% figure is now becoming widely accepted locally, despite it being totally untrue and without any evidence whatsoever to substantiate it.
In such a context I would expect the Conservative Party to act more responsibly and resist the temptation of inflaming hostility and racism against European Union migrant workers, especially as there are millions of UK residents also living and working in the EU who could also come under similar threat and vilification in the future, especially in the context of growing economic insecurity across Europe.
I know there will also be many Conservatives who will also be dismayed by this anti-migrant worker stance – particularly those with family members, friends or work colleagues whose origins are from Europe. Migrant workers from the EU, and other immigrants to the UK, have a long and distinguished history of contributing to our economy and society and there are many who have leading positions in, or who are members of, all political parties – including the Conservative Party.
David Cameron, the leader of the Conservative Party, has made it clear on many occasions that racism is completely unacceptable and we should not tolerate racism in any walk of life or society.
I call upon David Cameron and the Conservative Party to investigate these cases of misleading and inaccurate anti-migrant worker statements and take action to eliminate racism from the Conservative Party.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
